SENATE BILL REPORT

E2SHB 1793

BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Ebersole, Appelwick, Patrick, Wolfe, Haugen, Tate, Crane, Ballard, Brekke, Bowman, Sayan, Brumsickle, Walk, Wood, Dorn, Horn, Valle, Youngsman, Wang, McLean, Cantwell, Basich, Day, Brough, R. Meyers, Rayburn, Moyer, Peery, Winsley, Rasmussen, May, R. Fisher, Holland, Sprenkle, Miller, Rector, S. Wilson, Baugher, Chandler, Cooper, Schmidt, Raiter, Betrozoff, Pruitt, Walker, H. Myers, Nealey, Heavey, Brooks, Ferguson, Padden, Doty, Fuhrman, Van Luven, Silver, D. Sommers, Beck, Spanel, Dellwo, Scott, Inslee, Todd, Morris, K. Wilson, Gallagher, Prince, P. King, O'Brien, Jones, Smith, Hine and G. Fisher)

Creating the Omnibus Alcohol and Controlled Substance Act of 1989.

House Committe on Judiciary

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Senate Committee on Ways & Means

Senate Hearing Date(s):March 23, 1989

Majority Report: Do pass as amended.

Signed by Senators McDonald, Chairman; Amondson, Bailey, Bluechel, Cantu, Fleming, Gaspard, Hayner, Lee, Moore, Newhouse, Owen, Saling, Smith, Talmadge, Wojahn.

Senate Staff:Randy Hodgins (786-7715)

March 28, 1989

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS, MARCH 23, 1989

BACKGROUND:

Drug and alcohol abuse have become an increasingly heavy burden on many of society's institutions. The problem impacts educational, social and law enforcement agencies. A variety of criminal and other laws currently address the problem in one way or another.

Most drug crimes are covered in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and sentencing for felony violations of that act is part of the Sentencing Reform Act. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act contains "schedules" of drugs, with schedule I and II drugs generally being the most addictive or dangerous. Cocaine and opium related drugs such as heroin are schedule I and II drugs that are also classified as "narcotic" drugs. The maximum penalties for violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act are set by that act. However, the Sentencing Reform Act determines the sentence that is likely to be given in a particular case. The Sentencing Reform Act provides for presumptive sentences for various ranked felonies, including violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. A presumptive sentence is a narrow range of incarceration time within which a judge is to sentence an offender. The presumptive sentence is based on the "seriousness level" of the crime committed and the criminal history score of the offender. The higher the felony of conviction is ranked, and the higher the offender's criminal history score, the longer the presumptive sentence will be. Presumptive sentences may be departed from by a sentencing judge in exceptional circumstances. If there are sufficient aggravating circumstances, a sentence may be given that exceeds the presumptive range. However, no sentence may exceed the statutory maximum sentence prescribed by the law that creates the offense of which the offender has been convicted. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act prescribes various maximum penalties for violations. In some instances the otherwise applicable maximum is doubled. If an adult distributes certain drugs to a minor, the maximums are doubled. A second or subsequent conviction for most drug offenses also results in doubling of the maximums.

The state's Privacy Act generally prohibits the interception, transmission or recording of any private conversation or communication without the consent of all parties concerned. The state law, however, provides a number of exceptions to this general prohibition. Four major categories of these exceptions have to do with criminal activity. First, certain "wire" communications or conversations (e.g. telephone calls) may be recorded. A telephone call may be recorded if it is of an emergency, threatening or harassing nature, or if it involves a hostage holding situation, so long as one party to the call consents to the recording. This exception applies to private citizens as well as government officials and requires no prior authorization of any kind. Second, incoming calls to police, fire and emergency personnel as well as arrest procedures by law enforcement agencies may be recorded without prior judicial authorization. Third, a police officer (or undercover agent) may record a conversation without the consent of all parties if the officer has acquired prior judicial authorization. That authorization may be obtained from any judge or magistrate in person or by telephone and must be based on probable cause to believe that the conversation will involve a felony. Fourth, an exception exists for certain conversations in which no party has consented to the interception. A typical example might be wiretapping a phone call between two parties neither one of which knows of the wiretap. This exception requires the state attorney general or a county prosecuting attorney to get prior authorization (an "ex parte" order) from a superior court judge. This exception is limited to situations involving national security, threat to human life, arson or riot.

Information obtained through an interception or recording of a private conversation in violation of the Privacy Act is generally inadmissible in court. Information obtained pursuant to an ex parte order (i.e., when no party to the conversation has consented to the interception or recording) is also generally inadmissible. Two exceptions are provided for this general rule of inadmissibility. First, the rule does not apply to a person whose rights have been violated under the Privacy Act. Second, the inadmissibility rule does not apply to prosecutions of crimes that jeopardize national security.

A violation of the Privacy Act is a gross misdemeanor. Persons injured by violations may also bring a civil suit to recover actual damages, attorney fees, costs and liquidated damages of up to $1,000.

Under the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act, certain property that is used or intended for use in illegal drug activities may be seized by law enforcement or regulatory agencies. These provisions apply only to certain items of personal property such as illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, drug money, manufacturing equipment, drug containers, and vehicles used to transport drugs. Real property is not covered.

Seizure and forfeiture are civil processes and are independent of the filing or outcome of any criminal charges against the owner of the property. The seizing agency must notify the owner of seized property of the right to a hearing. Notification may be by publication. In a forfeiture hearing, the burden of proof is on the owner of the property to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property either was not used in illegal drug activity or was used without the consent or knowledge of the owner.

Current law allows for the involuntary treatment of persons suffering from mental disorders and of those suffering from alcohol addiction. While such persons may also be suffering from drug addiction, the involuntary treatment law does not specifically address the treatment needs of drug abusers, and does not allow their treatment at all unless their problems also stem from mental disorders or alcohol abuse.

SUMMARY:

CRIMES AND PENALTIES: Penalties for various drug related crimes are increased, and the crime of first degree reckless endangerment is created as a class C felony.

The seriousness levels of various drug crimes are increased. Delivery of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines is increased to a level VIII crime which carries a presumptive sentence for a first time offender of two years.

Misdemeanor drug offenses are given a mandatory minimum sentence of one day in jail and a $250 fine. The minimum fine rises to $500 on a second offense. A felony drug conviction carries a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense and $2,000 for a second offense.

Enhancements are also provided for sentences for various drug offenses. An additional 24 months is added to the presumptive sentence for any offense involving two kilograms or more of certain drugs. An increased maximum fine is also allowed for offenses involving two or more kilograms. A fine of $100,000 may be imposed for two kilograms, and an additional fine of $50 per gram may be imposed for amounts above two kilograms. The otherwise applicable maximum penalties are doubled and the presumptive sentence is increased by 24 months for certain drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a school.

The points assigned to an offender for criminal history are increased for prior drug offenses. If an offender is being charged with a drug offense and has prior drug offenses, those prior convictions count three points instead of two in determining the offenders criminal history score. This increase in counting will increase the presumptive sentence for repeat drug offenders.

The crime of first degree reckless endangerment is created. The crime is a class C felony, and involves the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another person.

BOOT CAMPS: The Department of Corrections is to develop a regimented inmate discipline pilot program for implementation on July 1, 1990. The program expires July 1, 1993.

A pilot project boot camp for juveniles is also authorized. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) will develop the program. The program expires July 1, 1993.

ONE-PARTY CONSENT: A number of changes are made in the Privacy Act to give law enforcement agencies greater authority to intercept, transmit or record conversations that involve illegal drug activities.

Officer Safety. Certain police officers may authorize interceptions and transmissions of private conversations solely for the purpose of protecting the safety of an officer or undercover agent. A police commander or officer above the rank of first line supervisor may authorize such an interception if: (1) At least one party has consented to the interception; (2) The authorizing officer has a reasonable suspicion that the consenting party's safety will be in danger; (3) The conversation will involve illegal drug activity; and (4) The authorization is made in writing.

Law enforcement agencies are to make monthly reports to the Office of the Administrator for the Courts indicating the number of authorizations issued and the number of conversations intercepted under these officer safety provisions.

Information obtained through these officer safety interceptions is inadmissible except with the permission of a nonconsenting party or in a trial involving death or injury to an officer. However, officers may testify as to information gained independently of the interception. An agency must destroy records or information obtained through any interception where an officer has not been injured or killed.

Interceptions with Judicial Authorization. Existing provisions for obtaining judicial authorization to intercept a conversation in which one party to the conversation has consented to the interception are altered. The Office of the Administrator for the Courts is to establish a procedure for insuring that a judge or magistrate is on call at all times for purposes of issuing authorizations. The period for which such an authorization is good is extended to 14 days in the case of conversations involving illegal drug transactions. Authorizations in other cases remain good for only seven days. The requirements for specifying the parties to, and circumstances of, the conversation to be intercepted are lessened in drug cases.

Interceptions without Judicial Authorization. Police agencies are authorized to intercept conversations in one party consent drug cases without prior judicial authorization. However, this authority does not extend to telephone conversations. The chief officer of an agency may authorize an interception if there is probable cause to believe the conversation will involve an illegal drug transaction. The authorization must be in writing and must indicate whether an attempt was made to get judicial authorization, and if so, what the outcome of the attempt was.

Agency authorizations are good for only 24 hours. Any recordings made must be protected from alteration. Within 15 days after an authorization, a court must review the authorization to see if probable cause existed for the agency to authorize the interception. If the court finds there was no probable cause, any record of information obtained by the interception is to be destroyed. Six months following such a determination, the court is to notify nonconsenting parties to the conversation that an unauthorized interception was made. Agencies may seek extensions on this six month period in cases of ongoing criminal investigations.

Intentionally violating these provisions relating to agency authorized interceptions is a class C felony. Civil damages of $25,000 are also available to parties whose privacy rights are violated if the agency has been found not to have had probable cause and also not even to have had a "reasonable suspicion" that the conversation in question would involve illegal drug transactions.

The State Attorney General is given authority to prosecute violations of the Privacy Act.

PROPERTY FORFEITURE: Real property is added to the types of property that may be seized and forfeited under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Special standards and procedural rules are made applicable to the forfeiture of real property.

In a hearing on forfeiture of real property, the seizing agency must prove that there was a "substantial nexus" between the seized property and the illegal drug activity.

Notice of the right to a hearing must be given to the owner of seized real property in the same manner as notice is given in ordinary civil actions.

Certain limitations apply to the forfeiture of real property in some cases. Giving drugs as bona fide gifts, or possessing small amounts of marijuana, or selling small amounts of marijuana or legend drugs cannot lead to forfeiture. Forfeitures are subject to bona fide security interests. The homestead right of an owner who did not participate in the illegal drug activities cannot be forfeited.

Until July 1, 1995, 25 percent of the proceeds from real property forfeitures will go to the seizing agency, and 75 percent will go to the state. After that date, the percentages will be reversed.

OFF-LIMITS ORDERS: A court may enjoin a known drug trafficker from entering an off limits area. A known drug trafficker is someone who has any prior felony drug conviction and has been arrested for a felony drug offense.

An off limits order may be sought in conjunction with any civil action, nuisance abatement action, an action to evict tenants for drug activity, pretrial release of a known drug trafficker, or post conviction sentencing.

A prosecutor, city attorney, or any resident or owner of property in an area affected by drug trafficking may seek a temporary or permanent injunction against a known drug trafficker. Private applicants must file a bond of at least $1,000 in connection with their applications for an order. Permanent orders are for a one year period with extensions possible.

DRUG SITE CLEANUP: Law enforcement agencies are authorized to contract with private firms to clean up illegal drug manufacturing sites. The Department of Ecology is to attempt to recover the cost of cleanup from the responsible parties.

KEG REGISTRATION: A system for registering beer kegs is established.

Sellers of beer kegs must require retail purchasers to supply certain information. A purchaser must provide adequate identification; must sign a receipt; agree in writing not to allow minors to drink from the keg; indicate where the keg will be used; and post a sworn statement near the keg indicating that minors may not drink from it.

The Liquor Control Board is required to develop rules for the identification of kegs. Selling of an unidentified keg is a misdemeanor. A civil penalty of $500 may be imposed for failure to comply with the registration of sales provisions of the act. An intentional violation of those provisions is also a misdemeanor.

The state preempts the entire field of keg registration. Local ordinances may contain only the same or lessor restrictions and penalties as are provided by the state law.

SPECIAL NARCOTICS UNIT: A special narcotics enforcement unit is established within the state patrol's drug control assistance unit. The new unit is to consist of three attorneys, two investigators, accountants and support staff.

The special narcotics enforcement unit is responsible for conducting criminal narcotic profiteering investigations and prosecutions; training local undercover narcotics agents; and coordinating interjurisdictional narcotic investigations.

All fees, fines, forfeitures and reimbursements collected as a result of action initiated by the special unit are to be placed in the drug enforcement and education account.

PROSECUTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: An advisory committee is established to oversee the operation of a state-wide drug prosecution assistance program. The committee consists of the Attorney General, the chief of the Washington State Patrol, both United States Attorneys in the state, and three county prosecutors picked by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. One of the three county prosecutors is to be selected by the committee to be the project director.

The project director may employ up to five attorneys to act as deputy prosecutors in counties that request help in prosecuting drug cases.

NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT: Local governments may condemn and acquire individual land parcels if those parcels are "blighted." A property is blighted if it is associated with illegal drug activity. The local government must adopt a resolution declaring the property a blight in the neighborhood. The government can then acquire the property, sell it, or improve it in the public interest.

SCHOOL LOCKER SEARCHES: A school principal or vice principal can search a student's person, property or locker if the principal has reasonable grounds to believe that the search will yield evidence of the student's violation of the law or school rules. The scope of the search is proper when the methods used are reasonably related to the search objectives and are not excessively intrusive considering the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. In addition, the Legislature finds students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in school lockers and a principal or vice principal can search all school issued student lockers at any time without prior notice. If during the search, the principal develops a reasonable suspicion that containers in the locker contain drugs, weapons, or contraband, the principal may search the containers.

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION: A grant program is established in the Governor's office, to be administered by the Department of Community Development, for the purpose of community mobilization against substance abuse. At a minimum, grant applications must include: (1) A description of a community's geographical area; (2) The extent of substance abuse in the community; (3) Evidence of active community participation; (4) Identification of a community-wide strategy for the prevention, treatment, and enforcement activities; and (5) Identification of activities requiring additional or new funding. Grants are to be made throughout the state for maximum coordination of local and state resources to combat substance abuse. Not more than 50 percent of the funds are to be awarded on a per capita basis, and not less than 50 percent through a competitive allocation process. The Governor is to report to the Legislature by January 1, 1991, regarding the operations of the grant program.

INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT: The uniform alcoholism and intoxication treatment act is amended to allow for limited involuntary commitment and treatment of drug abusers. Drug addicted persons may be detained for 72 hours of detoxification.

Applicable privileged communications statutes affecting spouses, physicians and registered nurses are amended to allow for a conditional waiver of a privilege in cases of involuntary treatment of alcohol abusers.

Certain definitions are changed or added to allow treatment of a wider variety of alcohol and drug affected persons. The period of involuntary treatment of alcoholics is extended from 30 days to 60 days.

EARLY INTERVENTION: Grants are provided for the implementation of local school district drug abuse intervention programs in grades kindergarten through 12. The programs are to provide counselling, assessment and referral for treatment, aftercare, student mentor programs, and training for staff, parents, students and the community.

Programs are to be delivered by, or under the supervision of substance abuse intervention specialists. These specialists may be certificated counselors, psychologists, nurses or social workers, or they may be staff from a certified drug treatment center under contract with the district.

The Superintendent of Public Instruction is to select districts to receive grants. Each grant is to be at least $20,000, and districts are to be selected on the basis of district characteristics such as family income levels, truancy rates, juvenile justice referrals, social service caseloads, and community group participation in drug prevention programs. Grants are on a district match basis and may provide no more than 80 percent of program's cost.

Grant applications must include comprehensive planning, establishment of an advisory committee and a needs assessment. Districts receiving grants must send annual program evaluation reports to the superintendent of public instruction.

YOUTH ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT: The Department of Social and Health Services is to provide an additional 90 slots for assessment and treatment services for youth who may be addicted to alcohol and drugs. Forty percent of the new slots are to be located east of the Cascade Mountains and up to 15 of the treatment slots may be staff secure. The treatment programs are to incorporate appropriate outpatient and aftercare programs, and the department is to develop intensive outpatient treatment services for youth for whom inpatient treatment is inappropriate or unavailable.

EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE STRIKING AMENDMENT:

CRIMES AND PENALTIES: The seriousness levels of various drug crimes are increased. Delivery of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine is increased to a level VIII crime, which carries a presumptive sentence for a first time offender of two years. Misdemeanor drug offenses are given a mandatory minimum sentence of one day in jail and a $250 fine. The minimum fine rises to $500 on a second offense. A felony drug conviction carries a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense and $2,000 for a second offense.

Enhancement sentences are also provided for various drug offenses. An increased maximum fine is allowed for offenses involving two or more kilograms. A fine of $100,000 may be imposed for two kilograms, and an additional fine of $50 per gram may be imposed for amounts above two kilograms. The otherwise applicable maximum penalties are doubled and the presumptive sentence is increased by 24 months for drug offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a public school, designated school bus stop, or on a school bus. The increased penalty will not be imposed if the prohibited conduct took place within a private residence, a person under the age of 18 was not involved and the transaction did not take place for profit.

The criminal history score of an offender is increased for prior drug offenses. If an offender is being charged with a drug offense and has prior drug offenses, those prior convictions count three points instead of two in determining the offender's criminal history score. This increase in counting will increase the presumptive sentence for repeat drug offenders.

The crime of first degree reckless endangerment is created. The crime is a class C felony and involves recklessly discharging a firearm at a dwelling, building or motor vehicle from a motor vehicle, or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm to the scene of the discharge.

The Criminal Profiteering Act is amended. Following a determination of liability under the Criminal Profiteering Act, the court may order the payment of all costs and expenses of the prosecution and investigation, including any costs of defense provided at public expense.

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOOT CAMP PILOT PROJECT: A pilot project boot camp for juveniles is implemented. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation is to develop the program. A juvenile is eligible for the boot camp if the juvenile is between 12 and 18 years old and is committed to DSHS for a term of at least 12 weeks. Juveniles spend from 90 to 120 days in the program. If the court recommends the juvenile be placed in the boot camp, DSHS places the juvenile in the boot camp if bed space is available. The department is to provide an after care component for the juvenile. If the juvenile does not comply with the program, the department may remove the juvenile and place the juvenile in another detention facility.

ONE-PARTY CONSENT: Provisions are established which allow for interception, transmission or recording of drug conversations without prior judicial review.

Any communication involving the unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell controlled substances, legend drugs, or imitation controlled substances, may be intercepted and recorded with the consent of one party to the communication without prior judicial approval.

Prior to making a drug-related interception, a police officer must obtain written authorization from his or her commander or an officer above the rank of first line supervisor.

A district court judge is required to review the authorization and recording for compliance with the statute within ten days of the recording. After review by the court, the prosecutor or Attorney General reviews the recording to determine its value in a prosecution. Recordings of intercepted communications must be destroyed after three years unless otherwise ordered by the court.

The Privacy Act exception for "wire" communications or conversations is expanded to all communications or conversations. This exception includes already existing categories of emergencies, threatening or harassing conversations, and the added drug related conversations.

The rules about admissibility of evidence are changed. The grounds are expanded upon which information obtained in violation of the law or pursuant to an ex parte order may be admissible. Such information is admissible to impeach any witness in any case.

The Chief of the Washington State Patrol is required to make two reports to the Legislature on intercepted communication involving drug transactions.

MONITORING OF INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS: The Department of Corrections may intercept and record or divulge calls from an inmate of a Washington State correctional facility.

The department must notify the inmates that their calls may be monitored and divulged. Personal calls made by an inmate must be "operator-assisted" collect calls. The operator must tell the person answering the call that it is coming from a prison inmate, being recorded, and may be monitored.

Only the superintendent and/or his or her designee may have access to the recording. The recording may be divulged to safeguard the orderly operation of the institution, in response to a court order, or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime. Finally, the recordings must be destroyed one year after the interception unless they are being used in an investigation, prosecution, and/or to assure orderly operation of the institution.

Notice of the right to a hearing must be given to the owner of seized real property in the same manner as notice is given in ordinary civil actions.

Certain limitations apply to the forfeiture of real property in some cases. Giving drugs as bona fide gifts, or possessing small amounts of marijuana, or selling small amounts of marijuana or legend drugs cannot lead to forfeiture. The homestead right of an owner who did not participate in the illegal drug activities cannot be forfeited.

Forfeitures of either real or personal property are subject to bona fide security interests of innocent parties.

Twenty-five percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real property and personal property will go to the seizing agency. Twenty-five percent of the money derived from forfeiture of real and personal property will go to the public safety and education account while 50 percent of the money derived from the forfeiture of real and personal property goes to the drug enforcement and education account.

KEG REGISTRATION: A system for registering beer kegs is established.

Sellers of beer kegs must require retail purchasers to supply certain information. A purchaser must provide adequate identification and sign a receipt; agree in writing not to allow minors to drink from the keg; indicate where the keg will be used; and post a sworn statement near the keg indicating that minors may not drink from it.

The state preempts the entire field of keg registration. Local ordinances may contain only the same or lessor restrictions and penalties provided by state law.

SPECIAL NARCOTICS UNIT: A special narcotics unit is established within the State Patrol's drug control assistance unit. The new unit is to consist of three attorneys, two investigators, accountants, and support staff.

The special narcotics enforcement unit is responsible for conducting criminal narcotic profiteering investigations and prosecutions, training local undercover narcotics agents, and coordinating interjurisdictional narcotic investigations.

PROSECUTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: A statewide drug prosecution assistance program is created within the Department of Community Development to assist county prosecuting attorneys in the prosecution of drug and drug-related offenses.

An advisory committee is established to oversee the operation of a statewide drug prosecution assistance program. The committee consists of the Attorney General, the Chief of the Washington State Patrol, both United States Attorneys in the state, and three county prosecutors picked by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. One of the three county prosecutors is selected by the committee to be the project director.

The project director may employ up to five attorneys to act as deputy prosecutors in counties that request help in prosecuting drug cases.

INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT: The Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act (RCW 70.96A) is amended to allow for the involuntary commitment of drug abusers. Drug addicted persons may be detained for 72 hours of detoxification.

Applicable privileged communications statutes affecting spouses, physicians, and registered nurses are amended to allow for a conditional waiver of a privilege in cases of involuntary treatment of alcohol abusers.

Certain definitions are changed or added to allow treatment of a wider variety of alcohol and drug affected persons. The period of involuntary treatment of alcoholics is extended from 30 to 60 days.

PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION IN SCHOOLS: The existing grant-based substance abuse awareness program for public schools is amended. Funding for the program is changed from a grant basis to an allocation model. Language is added to clarify that the substance abuse awareness program is not part of the state's basic education program.

A drug and alcohol specialist is defined as a school counselor, school psychologist, school nurse, or school social worker, and may mean a drug treatment counselor or social worker on the staff of a certified drug treatment center.

Districts receiving funding under the substance abuse awareness program must submit a biennial report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Funds may be used to develop student mentor programs.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT SERVICES: The Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act (ADATSA) is amended and incorporated into existing laws relating to drug and alcohol treatment.

Individuals who are unemployable due to alcohol or drug addiction are to be advised by the Department of Social and Health Services of the appropriate assessment, treatment or program services available.

The department is directed to continue to provide inpatient and outpatient treatment. The outpatient treatment is accompanied by a living stipend. A person cannot receive any combination of outpatient or inpatient services for a period more than six months in a two-year period, except in unusual circumstances.

Priority treatment is given to women with a drug or alcohol problem who are pregnant or parenting infants. The department is to coordinate case management and support for these women when available.

COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION: A grant program is established in the Governor's office for the purpose of community mobilization against substance abuse. At a minimum, grant applications must include: (1) a description of a community's geographical area; (2) the extent of substance abuse in the community; (3) evidence of active community participation; (4) identification of a community-wide strategy for the prevention, treatment, and enforcement activities; and (5) identification of activities requiring additional or new funding.

In addition, all grant applications must include evidence of additional local resources committed to its strategy that total at least 25 percent of the funds awarded. These matching resources may consist of public or private funds, donated goods or services and other measurable commitments including in-kind contributions.

Grants are made throughout the state for maximum coordination of local and state resources used to combat substance abuse. Not more than 50 percent of the funds are to be awarded on a per capita basis, and not less than 50 percent through a competitive allocation process. The Governor reports to the Legislature by January 1, 1991, regarding the operations of the grant program, and an assessment on the program's impact on encouraging and supporting coordinated community action against substance abuse.

Appropriation: A dedicated "drug enforcement and education account" is created. The following appropriations are made from this account:

(1)For increased prison operational costs, $8,800,000, and for capital construction costs, $12,505,000 to the Department of Corrections;

(2)For juvenile boot camps, $1,860,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

(3)For monitoring inmate telephone calls, $175,000 to the Department of Corrections;

(4)For a special narcotics enforcement unit, $940,000 to the Washington State Patrol;

(5) For a drug prosecution assistance program, $560,000 to the Department of Community Development;

(6)For involuntary treatment, $4,900,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

(7) For prevention and early intervention in schools, $10,000,000 to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction;

(8) For drug and alcohol treatment services, $3,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

(9) For community mobilization, $3,640,000 to the Department of Community Development;

(10) For security in schools, $3,000,000 to the Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction;

(11)For crime lab enhancement, $800,000 to the Washington State Patrol;

(12)For prenatal case management and support services, $7,180,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services ($8,160,000 is appropriated from federal funds);

(13) For juvenile rehabilitation substance abuse, $622,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

(14) For youth assessment and treatment, $6,000,000 to the Department of Social and Health Services;

(15) For adult corrections substance abuse, $650,000 to the Department of Corrections;

(16) For work release drug treatment programs, $110,000 to the Department of Corrections;

(17) For intensive drug surveillance, $1,120,000 to the Department of Corrections;

(18) For clandestine drug labs, $75,000 to the Washington State Patrol;

(19) For narcotics enforcement, $525,000 to the Washington State Patrol; and

(20) For a drug abuse resistance program, $230,000 to the Criminal Justice Training Commission.

Revenue: Various taxes are imposed to fund the drug enforcement and education account. Additional taxes of $2.89 per 31 gallon barrel of beer, $0.07 per liter of hard spirits, $0.055 per pack of cigarettes, and 10.6 percent on the wholesale price of tobacco products are imposed. Unless expressly reauthorized by the Legislature, the dedication of these revenues to the drug enforcement and education account will expire July 1, 1993. After that date, revenue from these taxes will go to the general fund. The Legislative Budget Committee conducts a review prior to the 1993 expiration date.

Fiscal Note: requested February 3, 1989

Senate Committee - Testified: (On the companion Senate measure): Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor's Office; Bill Stuht, Chateau Ste. Michelle UST, Inc. (con); Steve Wehrely, Miller Brewing UST Inc. (con); Larry Fehr, Norm Chamberlain, Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency (pro); Lyle Quasim, Safe Streets (pro); Kay Godefroy, S. Seattle Crime Prevention Council (pro); Pat Bethard, Comm. Alcohol and Drug Svcs (pro); Alan Wallis, WASPC (pro); Sherwood Korssjoen, Seattle business community (pro); John Hathaway (con); Carter Mitchell, Liquor Control Board (pro); Kathryn Boudreau, Washington State Council on Alcoholism (pro); Kathleen Reynolds, Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (pro); Frank Glaspey, Yakima County War on Drugs (pro); Paul Dziedzic, Office of the Governor (pro); Robert Roy, Ryther Child Center (pro); Joe Lehman, Department of Corrections; Jean Weldwyk, SSCPC; Phil Sasich, SSCPC; Ken Stark, DSHS-BASA; Jerry Wassom, DSHS-DJR; Rudy Gostand, Washington State Elks (pro); Leann Chaney, WSPTA; John Kvamme, Tacoma Public Schools (pro); Barry Antos, Pioneer Center North (pro); Simon Sifhl, Washington Wine Institute (pro); Peggy Patterson, Hoodsport Winery (pro); Glenn Pascall, Columbia group represent. Tobacco Institute (con); Chas. Hord, DSATCD (con); Bill and Celia Fritz, Anheuser-Busch, Tobacco Institute (con); Pat Fitzsimons, Seattle Police (pro); Geoff Gibbs, G. Heileman; Philip Showstead, King County Association of County Human Svc (pro); Dick Ducharme, Washington Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association (con); Jim Halstrom, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons (con); Mike Ryherd, Tobacco Addiction Coordinating Council (pro); Geo. Tellevik, WSP (pro); Doug Sutherland, City of Tacoma; Linda Grant, Assoc. Alcoholism Addictions Programs; Hal Lotzenhiser, Isabella House Drug; Leo Poort, SPD (pro); Andrea Dahl, AWC (pro); Charlie Marsh, State Council Police Officers (pro); Bruce Roberts, Washington State Tavern Owners (con); Eugene Wasserman, Neighborhood Business Council (pro); Elizabeth Frausto